StackFast FractWin Expert Brain

Talent Scout Enrich Contact Email

talent_scout_business_email_receipt

Read-only

Prepare Hunter.io-style business email enrichment receipts for a qualified contact. Uses wallet SSoT status, verifies before recommending, never sends, and requires human approval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Known business email to confirm from governed mailbox evidence. This path never calls a third-party enrichment provider.
`domain`	No
`last_name`	No
`tenant_id`	No
`first_name`	No
`person_name`	No
`sqlite_path`	No	Optional local SQLite path for BYOC receipts; hosted cloud calls fail closed instead of reading local files.
`company_name`	No
`email_source`	No	Provenance for a supplied known business email.
`person_label`	No
`auth_token_key`	No	Optional wallet/env key name for the tenant Turso auth token. Never pass a raw token.
`database_url_key`	No	Optional wallet/env key name for the tenant Turso database URL. Never pass a raw URL or secret.
`company_target_id`	No
`tenant_database_type`	No	Optional physical database routing mode. Omit for the default internal StackFast DB; use sovereign_cloud only with wallet-resolved tenant DB credentials.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No
`public_tool`	Yes
`drafts_never_sends`	No
`no_autonomous_outbound`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / email

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Known business email to confirm from governed mailbox evidence. This path never calls a third-party enrichment provider.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / email_source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Provenance for a supplied known business email.",
+  "enum": [
+    "governed_mailbox",
+    "human_confirmed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedJul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral facts beyond that: it 'never sends,' 'verifies before recommending,' and 'requires human approval.' It also mentions reliance on wallet SSoT status. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action first and compresses the relevant behavior (wallet status, verification, no sending, human approval) into a succinct list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description gives the essential purpose and safety behaviors, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, with 14 parameters, low schema coverage, and no guidance on what makes a contact 'qualified' or how wallet SSoT status shapes the receipt, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 43%, leaving several parameters (domain, first_name, last_name, tenant_id, company_name, person_label, company_target_id) effectively unexplained by either the schema or the tool description. The description adds no per-parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare Hunter.io-style business email enrichment receipts for a qualified contact.' This clearly separates it from generic receipt tools and from sending tools via 'never sends.' The title and sibling names reinforce the receipt/enrichment scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: it is for prepared enrichment receipts, uses wallet SSoT status, verifies before recommending, and requires human approval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving an agent to infer routing among the many talent_scout siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All StackFast FractWin Expert Brain tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?